TeeCee Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 I'm guessing I already know the answer, but would be interested in everyone's opinion... I moved house a few years back. I have here on Alamy some shots of the garden, it's design, some features (arches etc), and occasionally the house itself is in the background. At the time I took these, I owned the property concerned, and therefore the shots here have a property release - however, as I no longer own those things, am I still entitled to include the release, or should that be now removed? Thanks in advance for any and all opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Bell Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 IMO if you designed and made the garden and garden furniture yourself then it is a work of art so you are still the copywrite holder. Whoever bought your house is now enjoying your work but did not make it. Allan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 But a property release doesn't relate to IP rights. You may give a property release for your car but you can't give a licence to reproduce the design or any trademarks. I think you'd need a legal opinion on whether a property release expires when you sell the property, or, for that matter, whether it has any legal force at all. I can't find the reference, but a while back one of the owners of a house in Alamo Square lost a case against a photographer who didn't have a release. If a Californian ambulance-chaser couldn't make it stick. then the jury has returned its verdict on property releases AFAICS. Passing-off aside, of course. https://propertyintangible.com/2010/08/houses-right-of-publicity.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYCat Posted February 17, 2018 Share Posted February 17, 2018 I think our law and tradition of free speech and freedom of the press go a long way here. In one case too far, in my opinion. https://petapixel.com/2015/04/10/judge-fine-art-photographers-can-take-pictures-of-people-inside-their-homes-for-now/ Some people said they should have kept their shades down but, for heavens sake, we would be living in the dark. Taking photos of people through their windows just seems wrong to me. Calling it "art" doesn't make it more humane. Paulette Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losdemas Posted February 17, 2018 Share Posted February 17, 2018 34 minutes ago, NYCat said: I think our law and tradition of free speech and freedom of the press go a long way here. In one case too far, in my opinion. https://petapixel.com/2015/04/10/judge-fine-art-photographers-can-take-pictures-of-people-inside-their-homes-for-now/ Some people said they should have kept their shades down but, for heavens sake, we would be living in the dark. Taking photos of people through their windows just seems wrong to me. Calling it "art" doesn't make it more humane. Paulette +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeCee Posted February 17, 2018 Author Share Posted February 17, 2018 On 16/02/2018 at 10:33, Allan Bell said: IMO if you designed and made the garden and garden furniture yourself then it is a work of art so you are still the copywrite holder. Whoever bought your house is now enjoying your work but did not make it. Allan Well perhaps "design" was going a bit far - my main gardening tasks are digging holes and mowing lawns. I leave the clever and pretty stuff to my good lady.... On 16/02/2018 at 10:51, spacecadet said: But a property release doesn't relate to IP rights. You may give a property release for your car but you can't give a licence to reproduce the design or any trademarks. I think you'd need a legal opinion on whether a property release expires when you sell the property, or, for that matter, whether it has any legal force at all. I can't find the reference, but a while back one of the owners of a house in Alamo Square lost a case against a photographer who didn't have a release. If a Californian ambulance-chaser couldn't make it stick. then the jury has returned its verdict on property releases AFAICS. Passing-off aside, of course. https://propertyintangible.com/2010/08/houses-right-of-publicity.html Thankfully, no trademarks or such stuff involved in any of these shots, just plants, ageing arches, bits of house. 13 hours ago, JeffGreenberg said: In US, AFAIK, property releases have no legal merit unless property is a creative work, e.g., photograph, sculpture, painting, etc., or is trademarked. This is true regardless of what stock agencies require in order to represent photos as commercially available. I can photograph your former yard-house from public place & offer it editorially-commercially without properly release so you can, too. Of course, there's a sense of safety if one has property releases -- its a loud "the owner says its bloody OK" statement... All shots involving the house are in the back garden, so wouldn't be accessible or visible by the public. Think it's time for me to review all of these, probable outcome is that the ones with the house will have the property release removed, ones with just arches/furniture etc will remain as they are. I think ... Thanks for the thoughts everyone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.